Trump Pennsylvania lawsuit dismissed with prejudice.

[SimplyMe]

Apparently (if there are any lawyers here) only an appeal need be made. No need for details. The rest follows in a later court date. They only need state why it is relevant apparently. But the system is working because as the lower courts turn down the appeals, the faster it rises to the higher courts.

That is the issue though, they can't wait for a "later court date." They need the appeal to include an injunction preventing Pennsylvania from certifying the election -- once Pennsylvania certifies the whole case is moot. They needed to file an emergency appeal, completely with valid reasons why they should be expected to prevail in the appeal and ask for the injunction. A one paragraph notice of intent to appeal does nothing for them.

And, as pointed out by the information since, they essentially have no chance with this case. Even if the appeal is granted, they end up back in the lower court and get to amend their ruling but, by that time, Pennsylvania has certified the election results.

 

[lasthero]

That is the issue though, they can't wait for a "later court date." They need the appeal to include an injunction preventing Pennsylvania from certifying the election -- once Pennsylvania certifies the whole case is moot. They needed to file an emergency appeal, completely with valid reasons why they should be expected to prevail in the appeal and ask for the injunction. A one paragraph notice of intent to appeal does nothing for them.

And, as pointed out by the information since, they essentially have no chance with this case. Even if the appeal is granted, they end up back in the lower court and get to amend their ruling but, by that time, Pennsylvania has certified the election results.

You would probably know better than anyone here - once they certify, is there nothing they can do to reverse it?

 

[SimplyMe]

You would probably know better than anyone here - once they certify, is there nothing they can do to reverse it?

It is based on the state laws. My understanding is that once Pennsylvania certifies the election in the state is over but I've not actually read their election laws. From what I have seen, there is no provision in the law that would allow Pres. Trump to request a recount in Pennsylvania.

I suspect that you might see on the Trump campaign still trying to file suits in Federal Court asking the courts to overturn the election results based on US Constitutional issues, since it has priority over state laws, though I think it is a longshot that a federal court would rule in that way. The US Constitution clearly calls for states to determine their own rules for determining the State's Electors -- and even with Constitutional issues, I can't see a Federal court overturning a state's election after it has occurred.

 

[timothyu]

asking the courts to overturn the election results based on US Constitutional issues

How about computer fraud feared by both parties since 2003?

 

[Tanj]

How about computer fraud feared by both parties since 2003?

I think the courts would needs a side order of evidence to go with the fear. Also, not sure they can overturn the 2004 election.

 

[timothyu]

I think the courts would needs a side order of evidence to go with the fear. Also, not sure they can overturn the 2004 election.

Well as evangelicals might say, 'what would Perry Mason do'.

 

[SimplyMe]

How about computer fraud feared by both parties since 2003?

You have solid evidence of the fraud, which Homeland Security claims didn't happen? Beyond that, I'm guessing that a court would refuse to hear such a case after the election has been certified -- at least short of overwhelming direct evidence of blatant corruption in the election. Certification is essentially the state legally testifying that the election results have been checked; that the results are accurate, and that no fraud occurred.

As such, evidence seeking to overturn an election must have stronger evidence, enough to overcome the state's own claim that it was a free and fair election.

 

[timothyu]

Certification is essentially the state legally testifying that the election results have been checked; that the results are accurate

And if the software is flawed?

 

[SimplyMe]

And if the software is flawed?

Except there is no evidence the software is "flawed." For example, in Georgia the hand count almost exactly matched the computer count (paper ballots were printed for every vote cast in the election). There can be programming errors -- though those tend to be minor, and something that a voter has a chance to "fix" before finalizing his vote.

What you appear to be talking about is the "ease" of "hacking" the machines -- which is true, to an extent. The issue is, the machines are checked to ensure they weren't hacked prior to election day and the hacking requires physical access to the machine.

 

[Tanj]

And if the software is flawed?

As with everything else you have posted, the answer is "evidence please".

 

[stevil]

And, as pointed out by the information since, they essentially have no chance with this case. Even if the appeal is granted, they end up back in the lower court and get to amend their ruling but, by that time, Pennsylvania has certified the election results.

Unless you have certifiers that use the outstanding court cases as an excuse not to certify.

I have a feeling these cases aren't meant to win in court, but instead they are meant to go on forever, letting the states not be certified in time so that the Republicans can then choose their own winner rather than having to rely on the votes of the people.

 

[Tanj]

Unless you have certifiers that use the outstanding court cases as an excuse not to certify.

Pennsylvania is certified by 1 person, a democrat. GA is already certified.

I have a feeling these cases aren't meant to win in court, but instead they are meant to go on forever, letting the states not be certified in time so that the Republicans can then choose their own winner rather than having to rely on the votes of the people.

Wont happen. Firstly, the only thing that stops a state certification is a court ordered injunction. If there's no injunction the certification continues regardless of the status of the law suit, at which point it is possible the lawsuit is tossed out as moot. Secondly, if the state canvasser refuses to certify the state will sue in court to either force them to certify, have them replaced, or certify themselves. It never gets to the legislature. And if it did, since it is the law in all 50 states that the electors go to the popular vote, what actually happens is no electors are sent and congress chooses.

These left wing dark fantasies are no more helpful than the right wing ones.

 

[stevil]

These left wing dark fantasies are no more helpful than the right wing ones.

I agree but you have to admit it is very difficult to understand the games that Trump is currently playing at, what is his end game? Does he even have one?

 

[driewerf]

Yep. The real stuff is ALWAYS coming in two weeks. Tax returns? Two weeks! Healthcare plan? two weeks! Evidence of rampant corruption of the most fundamental part of our democracy? TWO WEEKS!

Even two weeks from now it will be two weeks.

Something like controlled nuclear fusion, that' s always for within the next 30 years.

 

[MIDutch]

Apparently (if there are any lawyers here) only an appeal need be made. No need for details. The rest follows in a later court date. They only need state why it is relevant apparently. But the system is working because as the lower courts turn down the appeals, the faster it rises to the higher courts.

Doesn't it only rise to a higher court if it can be demonstrated that the lower court was incorrect with it's judgement based on the evidence presented?

As it stands, the trump legal team hasn't submitted a single shred of evidence, so no incorrect judgement can be made on it.

 

[com7fy8]

In two weeks

. . . fourteen days of quarantine, possibly, to see how many of us have been infected by the deceit of forgetting what was promised fourteen days earlier.

What gets attention and mention in the news can change faster than New England weather.

You have solid evidence of the fraud, which Homeland Security claims didn't happen?

And if the software is flawed?

Sidney in this interview >

says there has been fraud, and states and individuals can be prosecuted with the evidence which she says she has; she has claimed there have been criminal financial rewards from the Dominion software company to certain government people using the Dominion voting software.

So, if this were true, already Donald and others have authority to prosecute states and individuals, if they know they have real evidence of criminal activity.

Even if they lost their appeals, still they would be obligated to turn in their evidence which can be used to prosecute criminal behavior, I suppose. And Sidney has plainly spelled out that they do have such evidence. So, if Donald were to keep her on, in due time he might be obligated to turn in such evidence . . . if he really has it. If they know they don't, possibly they know their bluff would be called . . . if they stay connected with Sidney who has made such claims . . . in the above-linked YouTube-presented interview on Fox.

 

[timothyu]

is his end game? Does he even have one?

Being seen as defender of the constitution will probably have more future advantages than merely being a President. Everyone in Washington knows parties hold no power. It is the money behind them and the higher authourity of those who wield it. That is why he can so easily call out a media that are merely mouthpieces for those who own them. He knows what is behind the curtain because he has been there. Politicians of either side are hand puppets for those who see government as their negotiation table. What happened with Trump is he stepped in where he previously paid someone to do so. Those who preferred to remain in their ivory towers got offended at this breach of conduct.

 

[timothyu]

, if this were true, already Donald and others have authority to prosecute states and individuals, if they know they have real evidence of criminal activity.

So where is the FBI in all this or are they afraid to step on the toes of the CIA and destroy a convenient computer program used by both US sides for 17 years, not to mention in other countries? Isn't this as usual in life, a win going to the highest bidder?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Being seen as defender of the constitution will probably have more future advantages than merely being a President. Everyone in Washington knows parties hold no power. It is the money behind them and the higher authourity of those who wield it. That is why he can so easily call out a media that are merely mouthpieces for those who own them. He knows what is behind the curtain because he has been there. Politicians of either side are hand puppets for those who see government as their negotiation table. What happened with Trump is he stepped in where he previously paid someone to do so. Those who preferred to remain in their ivory towers got offended at this breach of conduct.

If Donald had any evidence of this, He'd have shown it in Pennsylvania

 

[lasthero]

So where is the FBI in all this or are they afraid to step on the toes of the CIA and destroy a convenient computer program used by both US sides for 17 years, not to mention in other countries? Isn't this as usual in life, a win going to the highest bidder?

Yeah, weird, isn’t it? It’s almost like all the stuff about Dominion and Venezuela is just a lame theory with no actual factual basis drummed up in a desperate and pathetic attempt by Trump to save face with his supporters after a decisive election defeat.